Determining whether a statement is protected involves a two-step inquiry: Is the statement one which can be proved true or false? And would reasonable people conclude that the statement is one of fact, in light of its phrasing, context and the circumstances surrounding its publication. Keohane, 882 P.2d at 1299. This inquiry is determined as a matter of law. Bucher v. Roberts, 595 P.2d 235, 241 (Colo. 1979) (“Whether a particular statement constitutes fact or opinion is a question of law.”). Analyzed under these factors, and even assuming, arguendo, that each of the statements alleged in the Complaint could be proved true or false, no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.
The section begins on page 41 of the pdf, or 37/54 according to the numbers on the top of the page or 27 on the bottom.
I seen people brushing it off as "it's court defense, she says what's most fitting in this given moment" which in full honesty isn't that far fetched of an explanation, but yeah - still
It is though. The whole point of Powell and Wood was that they have concrete evidence that if presented in a court room could overturn the election. If they can't prove their statements in a defamation lawsuit (which has a much lower bar for the defendant than election cases have for the plaintiff), then they were knowingly outright lying to people's faces in order to grift.
Say wha? Powell turned her back on Qfags? Interesting.
As far as I know from occasional lurking on GreatAwakening.win, they never for a minute stopped jerking off to Lin Wood
In the motion to dismiss for the case Dominion filed against her:
The section begins on page 41 of the pdf, or 37/54 according to the numbers on the top of the page or 27 on the bottom.
Oh ok, I've seen this
I seen people brushing it off as "it's court defense, she says what's most fitting in this given moment" which in full honesty isn't that far fetched of an explanation, but yeah - still
It is though. The whole point of Powell and Wood was that they have concrete evidence that if presented in a court room could overturn the election. If they can't prove their statements in a defamation lawsuit (which has a much lower bar for the defendant than election cases have for the plaintiff), then they were knowingly outright lying to people's faces in order to grift.